The implications of finding absolute proof.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />Rich, yes I agree with the example above here, but if you were a student and went to the Professor and asked him the question; do you think this could be the remains of a living being then answer could very be different.

And this is the way I phrased this question.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, I see your point. The subtle difference in phraseology would make a difference, although my answer would still be, "yes it <b>is </b>possible (anything is possible), but I think that's a pretty big leap, knowing what we already know about the material (i.e., images) and the lack of hard evidence."

But I will grant you this much. When we're talking about "could be", well yes. It could be. But that's a pretty low bar.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To reply to this, I think we must first accept the fact that we are dealing with "another planet" which, changes the basis of evaluation to a large degree. <b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Yes. Not the least of which is the fact that we can't walk up to the item in question and look at it closely. That's a major theme of the "Pareidolia Knows No Bounds" Topic. Other posters have tried to draw analogies to Earthly patterns that didn't take this into account. For instance, if we see a Face structure in the Mountains of the Andes, pareidolia <b>would not necessarily be the first choice </b>since we know Earth has been populated for millenia. On Mars we know of no such thing, so there's never a reason to assume there is, especially when it comes to using it in proving the very thing we're trying to determine. (sorry, that's complicated)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So when an image is presented which has certain familiar qualities that can be possibly "aligned" with that of which we know of, naturally we make comparisons. This is human nature.<b>Malcolm </b> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fair enough.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the context of this most recent unusual artifact, several aspects of its structure conveyed certain familiarities. The question is; are those familiarities natural or perhaps created by an intelligent mind? The answer is - we currently have no way to tell for sure but, however, we can speculate without the need for conclusion based upon one's personal observation.<b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True, we can speculate.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What makes this process more interesting, is if we find a consistent "theme" in discovered artifacts or anomalies which seem to share a common denominator thus giving rise to the possibility of being related to one another. And, if those anomalies are found in different locations throughout the surface and have a set of properties that suggest a similar artificial design as recognizable or contrived, then in this case, the prospect of intelligence becomes greater, however still not conclusive.<b>Malcolm </b> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> What makes this difficult in the context of Mars is that pareidolia has the natural tendency to create "themes" by virtue of the fact that the same mind is producing the images. I know you don't like this answer, but likes have nothing to do with it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So what could be defined as a recognizable image that is repeated?<b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Herein lies the rub. You see themes, I see more of the same stuff, rich in content and contrast scenes, loaded with the potential to find faces, and unconvincing of anything in particular. I still look, because I hold out hope that one of these times it will be different.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
1. The signal must have qualities that alert attention.
2. The signal must have qualities that keep attention once it is captured.<b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Perhaps.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If there is one characteristic which is consistent in all complex life, is the brains ability to recognize another eye.<b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I agree.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In the artifact found in question here, there are perceptible images of the face in faux 3D at both ends (turned up side down) and it is undeniable.<b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I don't see anything like what you're describing. Perhaps you can produce a key to show us more specifically what you're talking about.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In confirmation of this observation, I propose that the artifact is in fact, of intelligent design.<b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> That's not the first thing that comes to my mind, but perhaps a key will help.


rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br /> it deserves to be known, not rejected out of hand with prejudice.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Malcolm, you are still confusing us with mainstream science. If we were "rejecting out of hand with prejudice" there would likely be nowhere for you to post.

We all understand that in the mainstream there are people who say, "there's no life on Mars, therefore there are no artworks." We all understand that issue very well, as it's been bantered around here for years, but your refusal to accept the fact that that's not was we are doing is somewhat distressing.

It makes me think you're really not listening and/or you have an agenda that (for now) hasn't been totally revealed.

It's very difficult to make progress when one side sticks to some kind of talking point instead of responding to what it is we are actually saying.

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich, No confusion re. Meta Research, I have the highest respect for its CV. Tom is and will always be one of my greatest mentors.

Life on Mars. Well let me see, if I were to ask you if you thought life exists on Mars, I would (at a guess) receive a response something like; "no, I see no compelling evidence of that" (please correct me if I am out of line) and, if you were to ask me, I would say, "yes, I see compelling evidence that life exists on Mars".

So we have opposing view points, nothing unhealthful about that.

My objective here is to bring that evidence to light in the belief that what I have found has not yet been uncovered and addressed. Hopefully, others will see this evidence and draw to a similar conclusion.

That is all, no hidden agenda. I am just an Interior Architect with a love of this subject which I would like to share with others.

Btw, you keep referring to yourself as "we". Are you on the board of some member council for Meta Research? Who is "we" and could you introduce them to me?

Big thanks,

Malcolm Scott

Rich, I see you have some other posts here, have to leave now but will get back with you later

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />Life on Mars. Well let me see, if I were to ask you if you thought life exists on Mars, I would (at a guess) receive a response something like; "no, I see no compelling evidence of that" (please correct me if I am out of line) and, if you were to ask me, I would say, "yes, I see compelling evidence that life exists on Mars".

So we have opposing view points, nothing unhealthful about that. Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, that's true, but when you put it in the context of "rejected out of hand with prejudice", that's the line I am referring to that has been used to dismiss the mainstream (to which it IS true about). However it is not true with me, and most of the other people who have posted here. As I've told you many times, I started out firmly in your camp of believers. You seem to keep glossing over that fact. I <b> evolved </b> into someone who is wholly convinced there are no artworks on Mars. There are over 50 pages of discussion on why in the "Pareidolia" Topic. You seem to be unwilling to come to grips with that fact, because every so often you recite the line about "rejecting out of hand."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Btw, you keep referring to yourself as "we". Are you on the board of some member council for Meta Research? Who is "we" and could you introduce them to me? Malcolm Scott<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> That's funny. Good question. "We" are the collective of people who have posted here over the years, like JRich and others, who have been looking at fuzzy pictures for roughly 10 years. No, I have no connection to the website other than as a member like you. I only use "we" instead of "I" in the sense of someone who has been a participant on one side of the debate for a while. So the "we" specifically refers to:

<b>People who are interested in the idea of Martian Art, and who continue to say nothing definitive has ever been posted to show artificiality and/or intelligent life.</b>

"We" could be synonymous for "my side of the debate".

rd

[/quote]Yes, that's true, but when you put it in the context of "rejected out of hand with prejudice", that's the line I am referring to that has been used to dismiss the mainstream (to which it IS true about). However it is not true with me, and most of the other people who have posted here. As I've told you many times, I started out firmly in your camp of believers. You seem to keep glossing over that fact. I <b> evolved </b> into someone who is wholly convinced there are no artworks on Mars. There are over 50 pages of discussion on why in the "Pareidolia" Topic. You seem to be unwilling to come to grips with that fact, because every so often you recite the line about "rejecting out of hand."

rd
[/quote]

This was a quote from Francis Bacon but surely was not meant as a "blanket" observation of your input. However, I think we should take a position that we need to look a little closer on these anomalies. Just because you have adopted the position of "it's not really there, it's just the way my brain see's it" can, in my opinion lead to a lack of understanding in the way the Alien life on Mars operates. I'm going to try and explain this a little better in a new post.

First of all Rich, I think you may need the right hard and software. Without it, you are looking at "fuzz".

Here's what I have used and the results are excellent.

1. A video card capable of 4k resolution.
2. Monitor that is also capable of 4K resolution.

www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39...tra+HD+120Hz+monitor

3. Download and install IRFANVIEW and get familiar with its workings. If you are using Photoshop or that HiRISE viewer, than you are "looking at the moon from the bottom of a swimming pool" - really!

Malcolm Scott